Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Asian Darwinist Profs Call Creationists Barbarians
CEH ^ | October 22, 2009

Posted on 10/24/2009 4:02:17 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts

Oct 22, 2009 — “We have kept the creationist barbarians from the gate,” announced a professor at Hong Kong University triumphantly. A news article in Science this week described tensions in the city over the teaching of evolution. The Darwinists won a vote over a change in wording in the science curriculum that would have “opened the door to teaching creationism and intelligent design in secondary schools.” The door must be shut tight, apparently. Even the possibility of this happening created a furore.

Reporter Richard Stone said, “As a year of honoring Charles Darwin and his theory of evolution draws to a close, scientists in Hong Kong are celebrating a partial victory in what is likely to be an ongoing war against proponents of teaching creationism and intelligent design in secondary schools.” He called the partial victory “bittersweet” because it did not revise the guidelines, nor did it rein in “the few dozen schools in Hong Kong that openly espouse creationism.”

Stone said that most schools in Hong Kong, though publicly funded, are run independently – and many are affiliated with churches. The author of the “barbarians” comment, David Dudgeon (faculty board chair at U of HK) complained...

(Excerpt) Read more at creationsafaris.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: abiogenesisrocks; antiscienceevos; asia; belongsinreligion; catholic; china; christian; corruption; creation; darwindrones; dodo; education; evangelical; evolution; evoreligionexposed; homosexualagenda; hongkong; intelligentdesign; judaism; moralabsolutes; notasciencetopic; propellerbeanie; protestant; science; templeofdarwin
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 241-251 next last
To: freedumb2003
2) Understanding TToE=”Darwinist”=”religion of Darwin” (science be damned)

Then I ask why Darwin's theory of Pangenesis was rejected by science if he's a religious figure. I haven't received an answer yet.

21 posted on 10/24/2009 4:30:33 PM PDT by Moonman62 (The issue of whether cheap labor makes America great should have been settled by the Civil War.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

In other (non) news: Astronomy profs revel in keeping Astrology out of the curriculum; Physiology profs rejoice in keeping Phrenology out; Physicists celebrate keeping Geocentrists out; and Mathematicians are positively giddy about forestalling those who insist 2 + 2 = e.


22 posted on 10/24/2009 4:33:28 PM PDT by Phileleutherus Franciscus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts; rae4palin
And it never fails, the evolutionists always retort with insults; never with counter-points.

You're kidding, right? These threads are filled with name calling, a lot from GGG. Plenty of people raise valid points about the science. And the response is often anyone who doesn't agree is a temple of Darwin worshipper, an evo-aetheist, etc. These threads used to be somewhat entertaining, but that fades pretty quick.
23 posted on 10/24/2009 4:35:13 PM PDT by TexasAg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

It was always less about ideology than about the power to decide which ideology would be acceptable.
As Mr. Orwell had the character O’Brien state,
“The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?”.


24 posted on 10/24/2009 4:36:08 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
OK, they called Ceationsists Barbarians but they did not prove it or prove darwinists and monkeys to be “Gentlemen”.
25 posted on 10/24/2009 4:38:43 PM PDT by mountainlion (concerned conservative.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Darwin Central must be over-booked tonight since it's overflow is showing up here.
26 posted on 10/24/2009 4:43:21 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: TexasAg; rae4palin
I never could figure out why the evos and evo-atheists get upset about being referred to evos and evo-atheists. Go figure. I think their reaction is very similar to liberals who get upset when you call them liberals. Ever notice that conservatives never get upset for being referred to as such???
27 posted on 10/24/2009 4:48:22 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change

LOL!


28 posted on 10/24/2009 4:48:46 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Keep religion out of the science class. That goes bor both sides.

Or just teach both honestly, and let the chips fall where they may.


29 posted on 10/24/2009 4:57:07 PM PDT by ApplegateRanch (God wants a Liberal or RINO hanging from every tree. Tar & feathers optional extras.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ApplegateRanch

You took the words right out of my mouth!


30 posted on 10/24/2009 4:58:24 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Drawing distinctions between that which the human mind decides is “supernatural” and that which the human mind decides is not super-natural is a task undertaken by fallible humans for their own purposes. We find it a convenient and generally useful exercise in reasoning from our own observations, but have learned over time that many phenomena formerly thought super-natural because they were inexplicable, and also often frightening, partly or largely because inexplicable to our fallible and limited minds, have turned out to be not supernatural at all once we learned how to explain them. Common and obvious example of this shift from supernatural to natural are the eclipses of sun and moon.


31 posted on 10/24/2009 5:12:24 PM PDT by Elsiejay (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
I never could figure out why the evos and evo-atheists get upset about being referred to evos and evo-atheists. Go figure.

Posting an explanation about why you do your name-calling doesn't change the fact that you do lots of name-calling on the threads you start. You intentionally keep many or all of your threads out of the Religion forum (where they belong) so the Religion forum rules won't apply. This allows bad behavior on both sides, including your own insults.

And, there are lots of faithful Christians who have no problems believing in Jesus Christ and thinking that evolution may be true. Yet it appears they are atheists in your view.
32 posted on 10/24/2009 5:18:35 PM PDT by TexasAg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Tax Government

‘“Stupid people” is more like it.’

Gee, thanks, TG.


33 posted on 10/24/2009 5:24:10 PM PDT by Marie2 (The second mouse gets the cheese.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62

“He should have called them willfully ignorant instead.”

Choosing to believe that the Bible is true is not willful ignorance, but faithful obedience.


34 posted on 10/24/2009 5:25:09 PM PDT by Marie2 (The second mouse gets the cheese.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Marie2
Choosing to believe that the Bible is true is not willful ignorance, but faithful obedience.

As far as spirituality is concerned, but for evolution it's faithful obedience to ignorance.

35 posted on 10/24/2009 5:32:16 PM PDT by Moonman62 (The issue of whether cheap labor makes America great should have been settled by the Civil War.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003
Well, that is pretty honest. Now, tell us all how we put the supernatural into science.

You don't have to : you just don't insist on materialism either a priori or ab initio.

After all, you still have Occam's razor, ECREE, and "well, we just don't know for sure yet" as layered defenses against rampaging theism.

But since you brought it up -- what is your opinion regarding the final two sentences of Lewontin's quote ("It is not that...in the door" from post 3)?

Agree or disagree? Absolutely, or in the interim so as not to bias your judgment of specific experiments or constructs?

Cheers!

36 posted on 10/24/2009 5:40:31 PM PDT by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62
Then I ask why Darwin's theory of Pangenesis was rejected by science if he's a religious figure. I haven't received an answer yet.

A sarcastic case could be made that the later scientists wanted to get some of the credit for their *own* pet theories, too; and not just from an all-consuming disinterested passion for the TRUTHTM. IN other words, everyone since Darwin has said, "No fair! *I* want to be the high priest!"

Or in a non-sarcastic vein:

Scientists remain very committed to their individual reputation and intellectual prowess, as well as the reputation of their field.

Consider (as examples of such) how Lister was excoriated for advocating cleanliness during surgery and between patients; and why the late Nobel laureate Dick Feynman left the National Academy of Sciences.

Incidentally, you might find the following quip by Leon Lederman (Physics Nobel, former head of Fermilab) interesting:

"Physics is not a religion. If it were, we'd have a lot easier time raising money."

Cheers!

37 posted on 10/24/2009 5:49:49 PM PDT by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Evolutionary science fills me with rage. Why do they keep digging up these damned fossils? Its amazing what they give out grant money for these days...meanwhile cancer is still not cured.


38 posted on 10/24/2009 5:56:10 PM PDT by RightWingNilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers

>>After all, you still have Occam’s razor, ECREE, and “well, we just don’t know for sure yet” as layered defenses against rampaging theism.<<

Well, my FRiend, that may all be well and good. But it is philosophy, not science. The point is that philosophy (and its offshoot, theology), belong in philosophy and the soft arts — not in hard science.

There is nothing that says that ID cannot be presented — it can, as a creation story, not as an operational mechanism in the naturalistic world of science.


39 posted on 10/24/2009 5:57:08 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (Communism comes to America: 1/20/2009. Keep your powder dry, folks. Sic semper tyrannis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
I never could figure out why the evos and evo-atheists get upset about being referred to evos and evo-atheists.

Oh you said evos! I Thought you were calling us emos. I hate that gothic crap.

40 posted on 10/24/2009 5:58:04 PM PDT by RightWingNilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 241-251 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson